Iran Solidarity launches at House of Lords

by RC Mon Jul 16, 2012 22:53

Heres an interesting article. Orthodox Jews wanted to ban the Pride Parade in Jerusalem. In 2005 a Haredi Orthodox Jew attacked the Parade and stabbed 3 people.

Israeli Supreme Court rejects bid to ban gay march.
Knesset vote to outlaw Gay Pride “bigoted and dangerous”.
http://www.petertatchell.net/international/israel/jerus...e.htm
London – 21 June 2007

“We applaud the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court to reject an application to ban the Jerusalem Gay Pride parade,“ said Brett Lock, spokesperson for the London-based LGBTI human rights group, OutRage!

He was commenting on the court judgement, ahead of today's Gay Pride march.

“This is a big victory, not only for gay rights but also for the right to protest of all Israelis - gay and straight, Jew and Arab,” added Mr Lock.

“The judges' refusal to succumb to threats of violence by homophobic Jewish fundamentalists is a gain for all Israelis who cherish freedom and liberty.

“The fundamentalists had been given official encouragement by the deplorable vote in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, which sought to ban Gay Pride marches.

“This bigoted and dangerous restriction on the right to freedom of expression was carried on its first reading in early June by 41 votes to 21. It was backed by a cowardly, bigoted alliance of religious and right-wing parties, led by Shas and the National Religious Party.

by lefty Mon Jul 16, 2012 22:35

"Everyone calls it wrong occasionally."

Ok, but the views expressed in that article are a little more than just "calling it wrong occasionally". They indicate a mindset and a thought process which is a little worrying coming from a highly influential opinion former in the anti war movement.

Anyway, people can read your links, some more of his writings and also read the article above and then decide for themselves. As I said previously, my own judge is still out on Tatchell and I'm still making my own mind up. But in my opinion it is not quite as cut and dried as you are making out

by RC Mon Jul 16, 2012 22:19

Posting an article from 2003? Everyone calls it wrong occasionally. How about all of the anti war work Tatchell has done since then? What about all of the articles hes written?

Look at the list of articles posted above by Ciaron O'Reilly which mention Tatchells support for Bradley Manning.

Tatchell opposes the execution of Saddam.

The aim of Saddam's sentence should be for him to show some remorse for his crimes; imprisonment is the answer, not hanging.

The Guardian – Comment is Free – 8 November 2006

Hanging Saddam Hussein is easy. But is it morally right? Will it best serve the cause of justice? How will it help his victims and their loved ones? Is the Butcher of Baghdad beyond redemption?

My first ever human rights campaign was in 1967, against the death penalty in my home state of Victoria, Australia. Ronald Ryan was hanged for a killing he probably did not commit and almost certainly did not intend. Ever since then, I have opposed judicial murder.

Despite his monstrous crimes, nothing about Saddam's case moves me to alter my view that democracies should live by a higher morality than the crude revenge-motivated pay-back of “an eye for an eye.”

The Iraqi people are struggling to establish a democratic, humanitarian state. Embracing human rights means rejecting the death penalty. Having turned their back on Saddam's dictatorship, now is not the time to revert to his brutal methods.

I say this as someone who - unlike Mr Bush and Mr Blair - campaigned against Saddam's tyranny for over 30 years. My memory is crammed with bloody images of the many Iraqis he tortured and massacred.

I remember, too, the small, lonely protest marches to the Iraqi Embassy in the 1980s, when western governments ignored Saddam's terrorisation of communists, socialists, democrats, trade unionists, students, journalists, lawyers, human rights advocates, Shia Muslims, and minority nationalities like the Kurdish people..
http://www.petertatchell.net/international/iraq/saddamp...n.htm

by lefty Mon Jul 16, 2012 21:57

In judging Peter Tatchell, I think this guardian article should also be part of the evidence. It is already on the public record since it was published in the guardian.
It outlines his thoughts on how he believed Saddam should be removed from power. Personally I think it sounds remarkably similar to the process underway in Syria.

Judge for yourselves whether this sounds like the statements of a bona fide anti imperialist:

This is the full text of Thatchell's 2003 Guardian article

"A majority of MPs have voted for war without any parliamentary or public debate on the alternative strategy of arming the Iraqi resistance to enable it to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They have fallen for Tony Blair's misleading assertion that a western attack is the only way to get rid of the butcher of Baghdad.
Clare Short used this argument to justify her resignation u-turn. Claiming the prime minister had "no option" but to invade Iraq, she ridiculed the idea that he "could do something different".
Tony Blair and Clare Short are wrong. The choice on Iraq was never simply for or against war. There was always a third way. We could help the Iraqi people topple Saddam. With serious military aid from the international community, Iraq's opposition movements, especially the militarily strong Kurds and Shias, are quite capable of demolishing the dictatorship and liberating themselves.
Mr Blair and Ms Short are, however, right to highlight Saddam's human rights abuses as the moral basis for supporting a change of regime. There can be no toleration of a leader who imprisons, tortures and murders. Merely removing weapons of mass destruction does not go far enough. Saddam and his Ba'ath party henchmen must be removed from power.
The issue is not whether there should be a change of regime, but how. Blair and Short are guilty of misleading the British people when they suggest that invasion is the only option.
A US and UK attack on Iraq not only smacks of neo-imperialism, it also has a big military drawback. What may begin as a knife-through-butter invasion could easily turn into a long and bloody urban war in the streets of Baghdad, with very high civilian and military casualties. Forced to engage in house-to-house street fighting, British soldiers may come home in body bags for weeks, months or even years.
Assuming, optimistically, that our troops take Baghdad relatively easily, they will have to remain in Iraq for up to three years to prevent a counter-coup by Saddam loyalists. The price could be high, with allied patrols being picked off in hit-and-run attacks by pro-Saddam terrorist squads. It could be like Belfast in 1972, only 10,000 times worse, with a daily carnage of sniper attacks, booby-traps and car-bombs.
There may be parallels with the way the French were bogged down in Algiers, and the British in Aden, during the 1960s. We could get caught up in a protracted, difficult-to-win guerrilla war against Saddam's 50,000-strong Republican Guard and remnants of his regular forces.
Saddam has presumably learned lessons from the first Gulf war. He will avoid battles in the open desert, where his forces are vulnerable to superior allied fire-power. Instead, he is likely to concentrate his troops in densely populated cities, especially Baghdad, using the population as human shields.
Most of his Republican Guard will discard their uniforms and go underground, posing as civilians, to fight a guerrilla war with no big military hardware and no set-piece battles. Defeating this shadowy, invisible enemy in unfamiliar terrain may be difficult for our troops.
There is also the problem of Iraqi public opinion. To sustain a change of regime in Iraq, we need the Iraqi people on-side. Right now, only a minority of Iraqis favour a western invasion. Although they hate Saddam, most are also against a US and UK attack. They fear civilians will suffer greatly and rightly dislike the neo-imperial connotations of an allied "liberation" where they are treated like pawns, with no say or control over their own destiny.
Saddam is already successfully exploiting nationalist sentiment. Playing the patriotic card against the "western imperialists", he is deflecting and defusing opposition to his regime. High civilian casualties in a war would make matters worse, provoking hostility towards our forces. A US and UK occupation of Iraq could easily become a Vietnam-style fiasco, where we lose the hearts and minds of the civilian population and face growing popular resentment and eventual outright rebellion.
There is, however, a credible alternative to western invasion. The international community could aid an uprising by the Iraqi people - a Vietnam-style guerrilla war in tandem with a "people power" campaign of civilian revolt.
This "change-from-within" strategy would involve providing massive material aid to the Iraqi opposition forces with a genuine base of popular support inside the country: the Kurdish nationalists of the KDP and PUK, the Iraqi Communist party, and the Shi'ite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Instead of creating proxy forces, as the US did with the contras in Nicaragua, the aim must be to empower the authentic voices of dissent inside Iraq to achieve their own home-made democratic revolution.
Compared to western invasion, a domestic insurrection would be far more popular with the people of Iraq. Fiercely nationalistic, they rightly dislike the idea of a US-imposed regime. Saddam's troops are also more likely to defect to an internal revolt than to the armies of "imperialism".
Modelled on the non-violent "people power" methods that bought down the dictatorships in Romania and Czechoslovakia in the 1980s, an organised campaign of civilian resistance could seriously undermine Saddam s ability to govern, weakening his authority and strengthening the Iraqi people's confidence that he can be overthrown. This resistance could include workplace go-slows, mass sick leaves, industrial and military sabotage, and the non-payment of rents and taxes.
However, given Saddam's ruthless repression, it is unlikely that civilian resistance alone would be sufficient to overthrow him. Armed struggle is now, regrettably, the only certain way to get rid of Saddam.
The international community should train and arm the Iraqi opposition forces, especially the Kurds and Shias who already have viable armies. This military assistance could be along the lines of the support we gave the Free French forces and the French resistance from 1940-45 - only more substantial.
An even better model of successful military aid is the assistance given by the Russians and Chinese to the Vietnamese people, which enabled them to defeat the technologically superior US forces. If Vietnam can defeat the mightiest military power in history, then surely, with a little help, the Iraqi people can get rid of Saddam?
The Kurds have 80,000 troops, and the Shias have 5,000 to 10,000 fighters. Both are desperate to take on Saddam. But they need more training and better weapons: tanks, helicopter gun-ships, fighter planes, heavy artillery and anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.
The west sold Saddam many of the weapons he uses to murder his own people. Isn't it now time we redressed the balance by arming his victims so they can fight back?
Equipped with the latest weaponry, guerrilla armies could be assembled in the northern and southern no-fly zones, where Saddam's air force cannot penetrate. From these safe-havens, the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south could launch military strikes; taking most of the rural areas and small towns with relative ease. This would create large liberated areas around the big cities, freeing millions of Iraqis from Saddam's control and bringing tens of thousands of new recruits into the ranks of the free Iraqi forces. With pincer movements from the north and south, Baghdad could be encircled and under siege within months.
The liberation of most of Iraq would leave Saddam holed up in the capital - isolated, surrounded and doomed. With his aura of invincibility shattered, there would be mass defections by his troops and the civilian population would be emboldened to open revolt; paving the way for the guerrilla armies to liberate Baghdad.
This internally based civilian and military rebellion would avoid the taint of neo-imperialism and lessen the likelihood of Muslim states rushing to Saddam's defence. It could also reduce the danger of a wider conflict, drawing in Israel and its Arab neighbours, and minimise the risk of provoking a global Islamic jihad against the west.
Regime change cannot, ethically, be imposed from outside in a flourish of revived western imperialism. Removing Saddam should lead to a democratic state, and not to a new form of autocratic rule by a US military governor and a US-imposed puppet regime. A home-grown change of regime by Iraqis and for Iraqis is the key to democracy, human rights and regional peace.
A democratic Iraq could become a beacon for human rights throughout the Middle East; giving the Arab people their first taste of freedom in a region that is dominated by semi-feudal Islamist dictatorships, notorious for their brutality, nepotism and corruption. Perhaps, in time, it might even encourage similar, long overdue regime change in neighbouring tyrannies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. "

by RC Mon Jul 16, 2012 21:19

> (would I be correct in asserting thet you reported a LOT of posts on that thread though and the mods responded?? ;-)

I was prepared to forgive you but theres no need for that crap,

Why not just admit you were wrong and leave it at that? If you have a problem with the hidden comments then take it up with the other mods. They made their decisions based on their understanding of the the posting guidelines.

by lefty Mon Jul 16, 2012 21:10

ok RC, I accept you weren't a mod at the time. But You can forgive me for thinking that considering the pattern of the hiding!! (would I be correct in asserting thet you reported a LOT of posts on that thread though and the mods responded?? ;-)

I think we will have to agree to differ on Tatchell and Galloway for now. My jury is still out on both at present and I'm entertaining views on both sides of the argument. Thanks for your input on the matter.

by RC Mon Jul 16, 2012 19:55

"Kinda ironic you link to a thread in which you hid most of the posts you disagreed with. I know because I participated in good faith on that very thread, yet also had several of my own (quite reasonable) posts hidden.

Including a picture which was in context and merely intended to highlight the serious anti gay culture in the USA., the very country using the issues of gay rights to score political points against the likes of Galloway and against countries they want regime change in such as Iran, whilst silently supporting other more harsh regimes such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia who played ball with them regarding trade, banking and oil.

I think your conduct on that thread was despicable RC

And of course that thread largely supports your views mainly because YOU MADE IT THAT WAY!!! "

I wasn't a mod at the time. I didn't become one until February 2009.

Your beef is with the other mods who found that your and other posters comments were in breach of Indy guidelines.

I know that this was a genuine mistake on your part.

The response to the letter above is full of assertions that very well may be true, but are not substantiated. The jury is still out on Tatchell here!! People are not constant entities. Sometimes people start out well and change later on.

Peter Tatchell has 40 year record of involvement in solidarity work and hes still at it.

Look at his track record, his consistent opposition to imperialism and his unwillingness to also stayy quiet about repression wherever the source.

Sometimes Tatchell will make mistakes in what he writes. but has a perfect record?

by lefty Mon Jul 16, 2012 19:34

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/86892

Kinda ironic you link to a thread in which you hid most of the posts you disagreed with. I know because I participated in good faith on that very thread, yet also had several of my own (quite reasonable) posts hidden.

Including a picture which was in context and merely intended to highlight the serious anti gay culture in the USA., the very country using the issues of gay rights to score political points against the likes of Galloway and against countries they want regime change in such as Iran, whilst silently supporting other more harsh regimes such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia who played ball with them regarding trade, banking and oil.

I think your conduct on that thread was despicable RC

And of course that thread largely supports your views mainly because YOU MADE IT THAT WAY!!!

The response to the letter above is full of assertions that very well may be true, but are not substantiated. The jury is still out on Tatchell here!! People are not constant entities. Sometimes people start out well and change later on.

by RC Mon Jul 16, 2012 14:19

Here are stories which outline Peter Tatchells support for Bradley Manning and Julian Assange and in opposition to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101751

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100201

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100100

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/99652

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/99314

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/98489

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/98470

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/98460

All of the above were posted by Ciaron O'reilly of the Catholic Workers Movement.

by RC Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:03

Like you and me Tatchell is opposed to any attack on Iran. He has been an anti war campaigner all of his life.

Here he speaks about imperialist hypocrisy.

UN, EU, US & UK must withdraw support from Bahraini regime
London – 16 May 2011

Speaking at a pro-democracy rally outside the Bahraini Embassy in London on 14 May 2011, organised by Justice for Bahrain, Peter Tatchell, Director of the human rights organisation, the Peter Tatchell Foundation, said:

“We are here in solidarity with the people of Bahrain who are struggling for democratic reforms, human rights and social justice. The state of emergency must be lifted immediately, all political prisoners freed and Saudi Arabian and UAE troops withdrawn. The people of Bahrain should be free to determine their own future by the exercise of their democratic rights, without external interference.

“The international community has failed in its duty to protect the civilian population from arrest, detention without trial, torture and murder by the regime of King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa.

“If the duty to protect civilians applies in Libya, why not in Bahrain?

“The UN, EU, US, UK and Arab League should work together to: halt all arms sales to Bahrain, cease military cooperation, suspend the operation of the US naval base, institute a travel ban and assets-freeze on top regime officials, prohibit the export to Bahrain of luxury items for the rich ruling elite, refer Bahrain's leaders to the International Criminal Court and the UN Human Rights Council on charges of torture and crimes against humanity, and report Saudi Arabia and the UAE to the UN Security Council for their interference in the internal affairs of Bahrain and the role of their troops in the violent suppression of the democracy protests,” said Mr Tatchell.
http://www.petertatchell.net/international/bahrain/bahr...y.htm

Its worth noting that in Libya under Colonel Gaddafi, homosexual acts were illegal and subject to a prison sentence of up to 5 years. But that was far more advanced than other Islamic countries.

by An Drighneán Donn Mon Jul 16, 2012 02:04

This group, Outrage, should know that if Yankee bombs start falling on Iran, then there really will be no discrimination against gay people - they will be blown to bits like everyone else. This is a kind of liberation, certainly, but, I suspect that gay Iranian people would prefer to stay alive and fight for their rights within Iran. I suspect that they would wish Outrage to ask them first about when and how they should offer support, rather than rushing in like a bull in a china shop. What rights do gay people have in Libya today? NATO bombing has never improved any country.

by RC Sun Jul 15, 2012 23:56

Apologies for the number of responses but being unable to find the debate I mentioned I'm finishing with a few relevant links regarding Iran by Tatchell.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84374

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/86892

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/91386

by RC Sun Jul 15, 2012 23:24

Just 6 months later some of the Ugandan groups had to take steps to defend themselves.

The Guardian – Comment Is Free – 17 September 2007

Ugandan government ministers are demanding the arrest of the country's lesbian and gay human rights activists. Deputy Attorney General, Fred Ruhinde, and Minister of Ethics and Integrity, Nsaba Butoro, made the call last month in a series of radio broadcasts heard across country.

They are backed by Christian, Muslim and Baha'i religious leaders who are calling for all "homos" to be rounded up and locked away.

Buturo told the BBC that his government opposed equality for gay people and would not decriminalise gay sexual relationships. He branded homosexuality as "shameful, abominable and ungodly ... .(and) unnatural." Urging gays to get out of Uganda he warned ominously: "We know them, we have details of who they are."

Butoro then went even further by attending a church-orchestrated anti-gay rally held in the capital Kampala on 21 August. It was a de facto show of government support for the homophobic religious zealots who denounced homosexuality as "immoral" and paraded with placards urging: "Arrest all homos." The rally was organised by the Interfaith Coalition Against Homosexuality, an alliance of Christian, Muslim, and Baha'i organisations.

The homophobic backlash in Uganda is in response to a new campaign called "Let us live in peace." It is organised by a small group of brave, inspiring Ugandan lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) human rights activists. They are challenging decades of systematic discrimination and violence suffered by LGBTI Ugandans. Much of this homophobic persecution is incited by President Museveni's government, by Kampala's notoriously sensationalist tabloid press and, most shockingly of all, by the Anglican Church of Uganda.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has failed to condemn the homophobic witch-hunt that is being stirred up by Anglican Bishops in Uganda. Indeed, he has gone out of his way to embrace and appease them in a desperate bid to stop them splitting from the Anglican Communion. Liberal and gay Ugandans are dismayed by the Archbishop's silence and indifference.

The attacks on the LGBTI community in Uganda are symptomatic of the increasing authoritarianism of the government of President Yoweri Museveni, who seems to be heading in the same direction as President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

Museveni's regime stands accused of rigged elections, censorship of the media, repression of protests, crackdowns on universities and trade unions, detention without trial and the use of torture. Details of these abuses are documented in my Talking With Tatchell TV interview with Ugandan opposition activists, which you can watch here:

http://doughty.gdbtv.com/player.php?h=53face69440034496...2369e

Despite state and church repression, the new LGBTI "Let us live in peace" campaign is defiant. It has been organised a coalition of several LGBTI organisations operating under the name Sexual Minorities Uganda or SMUG

Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG)

On 17 August, they held Uganda's first ever LGBTI human rights press conference at the Speke Hotel, where speakers called for an end to homophobic discrimination in the legal, education and health systems. Many of those who attended the press conference wore masks, and gave only first names, because they were fearful of identification and arrest.

SMUG speakers reported that the police are guilty of gross harassment of law-abiding LGBTI people. Officers often demand sexual favours or personal bribes in exchange for release from custody on trumped up charges.

The SMUG campaigners also highlighted the health problems LGBTI people face, particularly HIV/AIDS, which often go untreated due to fear of persecution by homophobic doctors and the police. Lesbian and gay people are excluded from Uganda's anti-HIV/AIDS prevention and support programmes. SMUG declared: "We have had enough of the abuse, neglect and violence."

SMUG is led by Victor Juliet Mukasa, a transgender lesbian who is one of Uganda's very few LGBTI activists who is willing to be identified and speak openly in public. Mukasa was forced to flee temporarily into exile in South Africa in fear of her life after police raided her home in 2005. She has now returned to Uganda to spearhead the new campaign and to pursue a civil lawsuit against the government ministers who sanctioned the raid on her home.

In Uganda, male homosexuality is illegal under archaic laws imposed during the period of British colonial rule. Section 140 of the country's penal code criminalises "carnal knowledge against the order of nature" with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Section 141 bans "attempts at carnal knowledge," stipulating a maximum penalty of seven years jail; while section 143 punishes "gross indecency" between men in public or private and authorises a top sentence of five years.

The Ugandan government openly flouts international human rights conventions that guarantee equal rights and non-discrimination, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights which Uganda ratified in 1986 and has promised to uphold.

The escalating attacks on LGBTI people began in 1999, when a state-owned newspaper reported that President Museveni had ordered the arrest and imprisonment of homosexuals. The New Vision newspaper quoted Museveni as saying: "I have told the Criminal Investigations Department to look for homosexuals, lock them up and charge them."

Five years later, in 2004, government minister, Nsaba Buturo, ordered the police to investigate and "take appropriate action" against a gay organisation at Makerere University.

The following year, President Museveni signed a constitutional amendment that made same-sex marriages illegal. Article 31 of the constitution now states "marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited."

The government has also attempted to silence discussion of rights for LGBTI people. The country's Broadcasting Council fined a radio station for hosting a discussion involving a lesbian and two gay men, where they called for greater understanding of LGBTI people and for the anti-sodomy law to be repealed.

The media is also guilty of rabid homophobia. In 2006 and again this month, the tabloid newspaper, Red Pepper, outed dozens of alleged lesbians and gay and bisexual men. The paper claimed it was doing this in order to "show the nation how fast the terrible vice known as sodomy is eating up our society." You can read samples of the lurid, shock-horror, gay-baiting headlines and news stories on the OutRage! photo website:

Outrage photo website

The pervasive "state homophobia," as Human Rights Watch has called it, together with the allied media witch-hunts, make it all the more extraordinary and praiseworthy that members of SMUG have taken such a public and defiant stand in defence of LGBTI equality. Their courage is truly inspirational. In defending LGBTI rights against an increasingly authoritarian state, they are ultimately defending the liberties and human rights of all Ugandans - gay and straight. Bravo!

http://www.petertatchell.net/international/uganda/ugand...m.htm

by RC Sun Jul 15, 2012 23:19

Here is the response from OUTRAGE to the above letter. As I said it was previously debated here but I will ciontinue to search for that. I'm sure some interesting points were made.

OutRage! refutes false, sectarian allegations.
Lies, slurs, egos, power & funding - nothing to do with queer liberation.

London – 30 March 2007

On 30 January 2007, a group of African LGBTI activists issued a news release headed:

“African LGBTI Human Rights Defenders Warn Public Against Participation in Campaigns Concerning LGBTI Issues in Africa Led by Peter Tatchell and Outrage!”

LGBTI = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and inter-sex

Their news release contains a series of false, defamatory allegations.

OutRage!’s African Affairs spokesperson, Kizza Musinguzi, and Peter Tatchell, have issued the following refutation of these untrue, sectarian, malicious claims:

This controversy has nothing to do with LGBTI liberation. It is all about certain African LGBTI groups vying for power and funding, and their bid to damage other, more radical and grassroots, African LGBTI groups, which they see as political rivals.

OutRage! is one of the few western-based LGBTI groups with a long record of support and solidarity with LGBTI groups in developing countries.

Peter Tatchell pioneered solidarity with LGBTI activists in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, way back in the early 1970s – when most other western LGBTI campaigners showed little or no interest in the persecution of LGBTIs in developing nations. OutRage! has continued this tradition of international solidarity since its foundation in 1990.

OutRage! reiterates its solidarity with all African LGBTIs - and their straight allies – in their struggle for freedom from all forms of oppression.

We regard this dispute as a huge, wasteful diversion from the main priority, which is to fight homophobia and transphobia.

Kizza Musinguzi, African Affairs spokesperson for OutRage! and a Ugandan queer rights activist, said:

"These are untrue, sectarian allegations. They are made mostly by people who have never had any contact with Peter Tatchell or OutRage! Since we have not run any campaigns concerning their countries, how can they accuse us of treating them badly?

“They have been fed lies about us by a handful of conservative gay activists in Africa and the US who hate OutRage!’s radicalism and are jealous of our effective campaigns.

“Those who signed the anti-OutRage! statement did so on the basis of allegations that are entirely false. Some signatories signed in good faith, but they were hoodwinked by people who are out to destroy OutRage!

"OutRage! has always acted in response to appeals for help from Nigerian and Ugandan LGBTI groups. We supported their struggles. Most African groups recognise this. Only a small minority of the dozens of African LGBTI groups signed the letter denouncing us.

“We continue to work with all the Nigerian LGBTI groups and two of the Ugandan LGBTI groups. We enjoy their confidence and support. If we had done anything wrong, they would not still be working with us. Even some of the people who signed the letter criticising us are now working with us again. They realise the allegations against us were unfair. This includes Oludare Odumye of Alliance Rights Nigeria. He has since expressed regret at the attacks on us.

“Nigerian and Ugandan gay groups are divided, with different groups pursuing different agendas and tactics. It is partly a divide between well-funded groups and volunteer grassroots activists, and between reformists and radicals. OutRage! supports them all, but works most closely with the grassroots radicals. The more reformist groups resent this. They don’t like the fact that we work with the radicals, who they see as rivals. They want exclusive control of the gay rights movement in their country. Many do little or no work with African progressive political parties and human rights groups, whereas OutRage! and its African allies advocate cooperation between gay rights groups and left parties, trade unions and civil society movements.

“Some of this dispute is also about money. There is competition for funding. Certain organisations see others as competitors. They want to be seen to be doing all the important work, so they can get the lion’s share of the funding.

“According to the mostly conservative African groups who condemned us, the Nigerian government’s proposed new anti-gay legislation (banning same-sex marriage and imposing other draconian restrictions of LGBTI people) was dead. They said there was no need to campaign against it. This lulled everyone into a false sense of security.

“However, we took a different view, which proved to be correct. Acting on warnings from our Nigerian activist allies that the legislation was likely to be revived, in mid-January 2007 OutRage! urged a global campaign against the new law. We did this at their request.

“Some of the more conservative LGBTI groups saw us as challenging their power and authority. That is why they denounced us and tricked others into signing their statement, based on lurid, untrue allegations.

“In fact, OutRage! and our Nigerian allies were right. The legislation was revived in early February 2007. Indeed, it was revived soon after the African LGBTI activists made the monumental misjudgement of sending their denunciation of us to the Nigerian media. Their well publicised denunciation boasted that the anti-gay legislation was dead and that we were scare-mongering.

“Their publicity alerted the Nigerian government and probably triggered the subsequent revival of the proposed anti-gay law.

“Having denounced OutRage! to the whole world and urged all LGBTI groups worldwide to cease campaigning against the proposed Nigerian anti-gay law, the international LGBTI movement was caught napping when the legislation was revived," said Mr Musinguzi.

His views are echoed by Peter Tatchell:

"I have supported every African liberation movement struggle for nearly 40 years – in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau, Eritrea, Darfur and the Western Sahara," said Mr Tatchell.

“For two decades, I have worked in solidarity with African gay groups. Indeed, I initiated the first international campaign to support the newly emergent African LGBTI movements in the early 1980s, fund-raising for their cause. Until now, no African LGBTI groups have complained or criticised my work. All have appreciated the support given to their campaigns. I don’t want thanks or praise, but nor do I want to be misrepresented and unfairly maligned.

"Contrary to the allegations made against us, our news releases do not contain untrue information, we do not exaggerate homophobic repression, our campaigns have not caused damage and we have never put anyone's life in danger. These smears are being spread by reformist political opponents in Africa and the US who are trying to discredit OutRage! to advance their own sectarian political agendas.

“I challenge anyone to show where OutRage! news releases are inaccurate, exaggerated or reckless – or European chauvinist. Such claims are politically-motivated smears.

“Our critics are nearly all paid professional NGO officials. Some are funded by the West. Some are full-time lobbyists who oppose grassroots activism and direct action protests. They say all campaigning should be left to them. They want to be the gatekeepers of LGBTI activism. Their denunciations look like a bid to maintain their exclusive control over the LGBTI human rights movement in Africa. A number of the signatories resent the fact that OutRage! works with and supports African grassroots groups that they see as rivals.

"A week before these activists denounced us, we halted our Nigerian campaign and made a public statement to this effect. We have not campaigned on Uganda for five months. So why did they denounce us?

“The news releases we issued in September 2006 on Uganda were at the request and approval of Ugandan LGBTI groups, including SMUG. They sent us their quotes for inclusion and we included them as requested. Victor Mukasa from SMUG suddenly turned on us after we also quoted other Ugandan LGBTI activists who Victor regards as rivals. Demanding recognition as “the leader” of the Ugandan LGBTI movement, she proceeded to publicly denounce other groups, like GALA and MUSLA as “crooks”. Victor’s uncomradely reaction appears to be about ego, power and sectarianism, not politics and liberation.

“Even so, at Victor’s insistence, we halted out Uganda work in mid-September 2006. We find it curious that after several months of doing no campaigning on Uganda we are now suddenly denounced in late January 2007. Why, five months after we ceased working on Ugandan issues, are we being pilloried?

"This vendetta has nothing to do with LGBTI rights. Certain groups seem more interested in fighting other activists than in fighting homophobia. Their petty jealousies and political sectarianism is undermining the campaign for LGBTI liberation in Africa,” said Mr Tatchell.

http://www.petertatchell.net/international/world_genera...s.htm

by RC Sun Jul 15, 2012 23:08

I wouldn't have raised it in the way that Tatchell did right now. I would continue to support women, gays, trade unionists and socialists that oppose the Iranian regime. But the ones that I am in contact with see the main enemy as being imperialism. As Yassamine Mather pointed out recently the only real opposition are those who will not compromise on opposing imperialism.

Tatchell raised it now and raised it in the context of the Olympics because the Olympics are taking place now. He also concentrated on Saudi Arabia. If I was raising it I would have mentioned the Imperialist threat to Iran.

I should also mention that Tatchell is no longer a member of Hands Off the People of Iran. I think hes mostly on the right side but Iran Solidarity supports the imposition of sanctions on Iran. As far as HOPI is concerned sanctions are war by another means.

The letter above was posted previously on Indy and I'm having difficulty in finding the relevant thread. What I posted is relevant to the debate and I will be back with more info asap.

by lefty Sun Jul 15, 2012 21:04

casement, Is that letter genuine or not??

by lefty Sun Jul 15, 2012 20:53

"It is wrong to suggest that people should stay quiet about the repression of gays in Iran."

Not saying it isn't. Just saying Iran is not the only place this kind of thing happens. My problem is with disproportionate emphasis and really bad timing, not the actual message with which I would largely agree.

And as I said before, dismembering people with high explosive is a far worse infringement on human rights than telling them who they can and can't sleep with. Surely that argument alone is enough to convince people not to support a war on Iran?? If not then the person in question has a severely fucked up moral compass anyway and good luck talking ethics with them.

There are lots of other countries whose governments repress their citizens on account of their sexuality. Perhaps Peter Tatchell could emphasise those other countries more when Iran is under threat then he could highlight Iran more when it is no longer under immediate threat of attack. Same goes for any other countries under imperialist attack.

All I'm saying is that Peter Tatchell should know better. I find it hard to believe he doesn't.

It might be a particularly good time to highlight "don't ask, don't tell" for instance!!

But no, it's "Iran are evil" again. How convenient for US foreign policy wonks.

by Roger Casement Sun Jul 15, 2012 19:24

It is wrong to suggest that people should stay quiet about the repression of gays in Iran. How do you build solidarity among Irish people against imperialism? What do you say when they ask you about repression in Iran? Do you tell them its none of their business? If you are not consistent in your opposition to repression then you won't get very far. Anyone who has engaged in anti-war work amongst ordinary people would be aware of this.

But the main issue here is the raising of these smears on Tatchell as if they has never been published here before.

First you could look at thisr:

Smear campaign against Peter Tatchell totally discredited
http://www.bristol.indymedia.org.uk/article/705266?regi...false
by Max Uploads Mon Jul 18, 2011 23:47
The smear campaign against Peter Tatchell has been totally discredited, and it's a great shame to see it rearing its ugly head again here, check this out -

http://www.rawnervebooks.co.uk/Peter_Tatchell.pdf

"Raw Nerve Books wishes to make an unreserved apology to the human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell and to the LGBT human rights organisation OutRage regarding untrue allegations published in the book "Out of Place: Interrogating Silences in Queerness/Raciality" edited by Adi Kuntsman & Esperanza Miyake (Raw Nerve Books 2008). These untrue allegations appeared in the chapter "Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the War on Terror" by Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem. We regret that this chapter contains serious, defamatory untruths concerning Peter Tatchell and OutRage. It casts unjustified doubt on their character, motives and integrity and involves a fundamental misrepresentation of their campaigns. We accept that the human rights work of Mr Tatchell and OutRage is motivated by a sincere support for people struggle against tyranny and injustice, and has involved valuable assistance to many LGBT campaigners in the UK and worldwide. Raw Nerve Books hereby offers the following correction to the offending erroneous chapter in Out of Place:

Contrary to the claims made in the book, Out of Place, Mr Tatchell has never "claimed the role of liberator and expert about Muslim gays and lesbians". He is not Islamophobic and is not "part of the Islamophobia industry". Nor is OutRage. Neither he nor OutRage are racist. They have not engaged in "racial" politics. Mr Tatchell has never described "Muslims as Nazis" and he has never made the equation "Muslim = Nazi" or "Muslim = Evil." He has never "collaborated with the extreme right" and never "participated with several racist and fascist groups"." etc etc etc...

Also from the statement:

We accept that Mr Tatchell has campaigned against imperialism for over 40 years. From the 1960s, he has
been active in anti-imperialist solidarity campaigns, supporting the national liberation struggles of the peoples
of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Eritrea, Oman,
Nicaragua, Palestine, Western Sahara, East Timor and West Papua.

He has received personal thanks for his solidarity work from, among others, Thabo Mbeki, the former
President of South Africa, and Jose Ramos Horta, the President of East Timor.

Mr Tatchell continues to campaign for the independence of the Western Sahara, Palestine and West Papua.
He supports the struggles for democracy and human rights in Iran, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Burma,
Turkey, Columbia, Somaliland, Baluchistan, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Belarus and elsewhere. As well as opposing
the war in Iraq and the western occupation, he has spoken out against US threats to attack Iran.

More on this later.

by An Drighneán Donn Sun Jul 15, 2012 18:56

Whatever the limitations and failures of the Iranian and Syrian states, for as long as they are under direct threat of imperialist invasion, they must be supported by all decent people. We can never forget the wise words of Trotsky (well, the SWP and the SP can, as they did when they supported the comprador counter-revolution in Libya, but not the rest of us)

I'll make the simplest and most striking example. Brazil is dominated by a semi-fascist regime to which every revolutionary can not treat differently, than with hatred.

Assume, however, that tomorrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil.

I ask you, whose side will be in this conflict the world working class? Answer for myself: I will in this case be on the side of "Fascist" Brazil against "democratic" Great Britain.

Why? Because the conflict between them will not be about democracy and fascism. If England wins, she will plant in Rio de Janeiro some other fascist to impose a double chain on Brazil. Conversely, if Brazil wins, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will cause at the same time a blow to British imperialism and will give an impetus to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat.

You need to have a truly empty head, to reduce global antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must be able to distinguish between the exploiters, slaveholders and predators!

Interview with Mateo Fossa 26 sept. 1938

by JoeMc Sun Jul 15, 2012 18:14

I believe that the letter genuinely came from African activists. Thanks very much for posting it.

by lefty Sun Jul 15, 2012 18:02

I would like to know if the following is a genuine statement by African LGBTI Human Rights Defenders regarding Peter Tatchell and Outrage :

African LGBTI Human Rights Defenders Warn Public against Participation in Campaigns Concerning LGBTI Issues in Africa Led by Peter Tatchell and Outrage!

PUBLIC STATEMENT OF WARNING

In order to prevent Peter Tatchell and Outrage! from causing further damage through their unfounded campaigns and press releases, we issue this public statement of warning.

As Human Rights Defenders from across Africa, we strongly discourage the public from taking part in any LGBTI campaigns or calls to action concerning Africa that are led by Peter Tatchell or Outrage!

Collaboration across continents is both important and valuable. We are willing to work with those who respect our advice and expertise regarding our continent.

However, Outrage! has been acting in contempt and disregard of the wishes and lives of African Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) Human Rights Defenders. We have made every attempt to address this matter with Outrage!, personally, and they have refused to listen. We now take this matter to the public, requesting you not to take part in any of Peter Tatchell or Outrage!'s campaigns regarding Africa, as they are not factually-based and are harmful to African activists.

Through the following actions, Outrage! has repeatedly disrespected the lives, damaged the struggle, and endangered the safety of African Human Rights Defenders:

Outrage!'s press releases contain information that is not factual. They do not verify information before including it in their press releases. When they are corrected by local activists, they refuse to print retractions or to make any attempt to stop the damaging effects of their press releases.

Outrage! repeatedly quotes people out of context and uses these statements to further their own agenda rather than presenting the truth.

Outrage! does not consult the relevant local activists before embarking on campaigns that directly affect us and are destructive to our work. They disregard collaborative efforts by African LGBTI Human Rights Defenders and international Human Rights organisations, and come up with unilateral strategies that work against the progress being achieved by the rest of the Human Rights actors. We are tired of having to constantly expend energy working to undo irreparable damage that Outrage! has caused.

Outrage! exaggerates the violations our governments commit. When they quote African Human Rights Defenders in the very same press releases where they are exaggerating claims against our governments, we are held responsible for their reckless outbursts. As African activists, we are then left to face the wrath of our communities for statements we never made.

Outrage! does not listen to, value, or heed the advice of local genuine activists. They mix our words with the opinions of uninformed, naïve, or crook individuals. They take whatever information is available, regardless of the source, and twist it to gain more publicity. Certainly, Outrage! is not acting on our behalf.

Therefore, we urge the public not to participate in any LGBTI campaigns regarding Africa that are led or influenced by Peter Tatchell or Outrage!, as they repeatedly put our lives in danger through their reckless, non-factual, and inflammatory press releases, letters, and calls to action.

As African LGBTI Human Rights Defenders, we are working toward the recognition of our rights by our governments in Africa. We do not appreciate or accept the efforts of Western-based individuals or organisations who try to make our work for liberation into an ego-boosting publicity campaign for themselves. We condemn Peter Tatchell and Outrage! for their irresponsible journalism and a deplorable lack of respect for the very people they claim they are defending.

We will continue to work with our governments on the acknowledgement and protection of our basic human rights as African lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people. Furthermore, we will proudly defend our right as Africans to praise our governments when they protect and acknowledge us.

OUR MESSAGE

United as African LGBTI Human Rights Defenders, we send out the following messages:

To Peter Tatchell and Outrage!:

Stay out of African LGBTI issues. You have proven that you have no respect for conveying the truth with regards to Africa or consulting African LGBTI leaders before carrying out campaigns that have severe consequences in our countries. You have betrayed our trust over and over again.

This is neo-colonialism and it has no place in our struggle or in Africa.

To the Press:

Responsible journalism is one of the keys to social transformation and the protection of human rights. Verify information about Africa before publishing it. Consult the leaders of the LGBTI Movement in Africa about strategy and do not just spread any misinformation you find on the internet.

Abide by the rules of good journalism with regard to Africa, as you would be expected to do with regard to your own countries.

To the Public:

International collaboration can give strength to already vibrant LGBTI campaigns in Africa. Consult from reliable sources that investigate cases before they report, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International (AI), and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC). Peter Tatchell and Outrage! are not reliable sources on LGBTI issues in Africa and information from them should not be trusted or used as a basis for action.

PRESENT SITUATION

We fear that Peter Tatchell's sudden call for a campaign to pressure the Nigerian government regarding the proposed same-sex marriage prohibition might backfire and cause the oppressive homophobic bill's passage.

After being warned that the advice of Nigerian activists is to refrain from putting attention on the dormant bill, Outrage! looked for some individual in Nigeria to support them in the course they had already chosen to take. To serve this purpose, Leo Igwe's comments were quoted in George Broadhead's recent press release and are being taken out of context. While Leo is a very courageous friend and ally of the movement, Outrage! should have contacted and requested advice on strategy from the LGBTI Human Rights Defenders who led the original campaign against the bill from Nigeria.

Over the past ten months, Human Rights Defenders from the region and elsewhere have exercised a lot of formal and informal pressure on Nigerian law-makers to make sure the bill did not get passed into law. Until Outrage!'s action was issued, the bill was dead. By calling on people to begin a campaign at this stage, interest could be awakened in the bill. Outrage! is acting irresponsibly and in direct contradiction to the advice of leaders of the Nigerian LGBTI movement.

BACKGROUND

Just five months ago, a similar situation was evolving in Uganda. Outrage! had included unverified information in a press release on Uganda and was refusing to listen to the concerns of Ugandan LGBT Human Rights Defenders. After many conversations about the importance of accuracy, fact-checking, and consultation with genuine African activists, Ugandan Human Rights Defender Juliet Victor Mukasa, finally wrote directly to Peter Tatchell:

"You have included unverified information in your press releases and those allegations against the government are going to come back to us. You will sit safely in London while our activists in Uganda pay the price for your deeds . . . We have many people in the West who support our struggle, but they would not do anything to jeopardize our safety. . . . You have shown a blatant disregard for the reputations and safety of legitimate activists in Uganda . . . I know what effect your press releases have on my country. Please put a stop to all your press releases regarding my country. It must stop."

Immediately following the receipt of this message, Outrage! issued yet another press release on Uganda, and helped organise a demonstration against the Ugandan High Commission in London.

These examples from Nigeria and Uganda are just two out of many instances of breaches of trust and disregard for the work, wisdom, and lives of African Human Rights Defenders. We have repeatedly asked Outrage! to retract their calls to action and to restrain from any further action regarding LGBTI issues in Africa. Outrage! has refused. As we would do in the case of any person or organisation acting out of such blatant disrespect for the truth and for the people they claim to defend, we urge the public not to participate in LGBTI campaigns led by Peter Tatchell or Outrage! which pertain to our continent, Africa.

Signed:

Dorothy Aken'Ova
INCRESE, 1E,Bosso Road
G. P. O. 3684, Minna
Niger State Nigeria
[email protected], [email protected]
08065488417, 08034500714

Juliet Victor Mukasa
Chairperson of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG)
[email protected]
+27 79 194 9561

Fikile Vilakazi
Director of the Coalition of African Lesbians (CAL)
Johannesburg, South Africa

Wendy Landau
Human Rights Researcher, Behind the Mask (BtM)
Johannesburg, South Africa

Kasha N. Jacqueline
Chairperson of Freedom and Roam Uganda (FARUG)
[email protected]
+256 772 463161

David Kato
Integrity Uganda

Samuel Ganafa
Chairperson of Spectrum Uganda

Danilo da Silva
LGBTI Mozambique

Judith Ngunjiri
Minority Women in Action, Kenya

Emmanuel Kamau
Chairperson of ISHTAR Kenya

Peter Njoroge
Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya (GALCK)

Joel Gustave Nana
Human Rights Researcher, Alternatives-Cameroon

Ayesha Imam
Human Rights Defender
Nigeria/Senegal

Sokari Ekine
Human Rights Defender, Black Looks
[email protected]

Carlos Idibouo
Consellor at TAGL
Advisor at AfriCar Project
[email protected]
[email protected]
+1 647 261 3214/ +1 416 922 4226

Mac Darling Cobbinah
Centre for Popular Education and Human Rights Ghana

Kanuma Georges
Leader of LGBTI group ARDHO, Burundi

Linda Baumann
The Rainbow Project (TRP)
Namibia

Thuli Madi
Director, Behind the Mask
Johannesburg, South Africa

Oludare Odumuye
Alliance Rights, Nigeria

For more information about the current situation in Nigeria, please contact INCRESE.
Comments (4) | Print
MR
StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter

by lefty Sun Jul 15, 2012 15:58

Why does Peter Tatchell choose to attack Iran further at such a time when loads of US ships are sitting off the coast and their population are being crushed by sanctions for having NO nuclear weapons.? It looks kinda suspect to me.

I'm all for gay athletes, the more the merrier, but I'm not for dismembered ones. Evidently Peter Tatchell doesn't have a problem with this as he stirs up 10% of the world population (who are Gay/Lesbian ) against Iran at a time when the drums of war are beating very loudly indeed.

Why doesn't Peter Tatchell choose this time to fight for improved Gay/Lesbian rights in Israel instead for example, a country who have 200-300 nukes, are not in the NPT and run an apartheid regime in palestine? I'm sure the ultra right zionists could improve their attitudes towards gays too. But oh wait those palestinians they oppress and kill might be gay bashing muslims too. Boo hiss.

Peter Tatchell should choose his moments better! On the scale of human rights, "Safety from dismemberment" trumps "being allowed to sleep with who you like, free from censure" every time!!.

A US war with Iran will dismember Gay Iranians as well as nasty homophobic ones and will destroy all the gay hangouts and blow up all the shops selling spandex pants. It will also stir up fundamentalists, thus pushing back the efforts of any social moderates and reformists in the country by 10 years at least. Get real Peter. Now is not the time to focus on Iran. Focus more on Bahrain and Saudi instead perhaps?. Or else people will begin to think you work with the Imperialists.

by Chicherin Fri Jul 13, 2012 18:02

PT didn't just mention Saudi Arabia and Iran. He said: “Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement”

“Why isn’t homophobia, biphobia and transphobia being challenged by the Olympic authorities? It is wrong that in over 150 countries LGBT athletes are forced to hide their sexuality in order to get selected and compete,” added Mr Tatchell.

“The International Olympic Committee and London Olympic organisers should require all competing nations to sign a pledge that they do not discriminate on the grounds of gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. If they refuse to sign, they should be denied participation in the games.

Yes discrimination is taking place in over 150 countries.

by jimbo Fri Jul 13, 2012 15:25

"The Olympic Charter prohibits all discrimination, and this includes homophobic discrimination."

Iran Solidarity founder Peter Tatchell calls for countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia to be banned from participation in the London Olympics

http://www.petertatchell.net/